The excerpt above is from a letter Ms Santelli wrote to the editors of the Washington Post; her letter was written in response to an opinion piece written by the Washington Post Editorial Board.

The problem is, the editorial that Ms Santelli refers to (Beware of dog legislation) doesn't exist. At least not by that title.

Ms Santelli's letter was written in response to an editorial titled Pit Bull Owners Left in Limbo over Liability, and her link in fact points to that article. The true title is not only a treasure trove of Poe-tic alliteration, but it accurately reflects the reasoned tone of the opinion offered by the Editorial Board.

Ms Santelli fabricated the title Beware of dog legislation. She has rewritten the title of a Washington Post editorial, which not many of us have the opportunity to do.

According to her professional biography Ms Santelli is a graduate of Lewis & Clark Law School. She may not recognize that corrupting the title of a Washington Post editorial is an ethical lapse, but others may view it that way. Ms Santelli's substitution is indicative of the "Win-at-any-cost" ethos that HSUS has used during the Maryland campaign. It's clear that HSUS is willing to resort to unethical methods to achieve their goals.

* * * * *

Notes:
This post is one of a series on the Maryland pit bull conundrum. To view the index of all Maryland posts click here.

In a recent 57 day period (Jan 8 through Mar 6, 2013) there were six fatal pit bull attacks, all of which were committed by family pit bulls. See Fatal Pit Bull Attacks

Statistics are from Dog attack deaths and maimings, U.S. & Canada, published by Animal People. To view or download the current PDF click here.

The Maryland General Assembly is currently considering legislation which, if signed into law, would abrogate the Court of Appeals finding that pit bulls are inherently dangerous. Both the House and the Senate have passed versions of the bill but differences remain. A joint conference committee is now trying to reconcile the two versions before the legislative session closes on April 8th.

The issue in question is one of our country's intractable problems, in the same way that gun ownership, a woman's right to choose, or immigration are intractable and polarizing. These issues, and the issue we are about to mention, are contentious because partisans on either side of the issue cross gender, economic, education, political and cultural boundaries, and have convictions based on faith and emotions rather than on reason.

The history of the current legislation is too complex to explain in a single email, but it began with the Court of Appeals ruling of April 26, 2012, which found pit bulls inherently dangerous. During a recent 57 day period pit bulls killed six humans, for an average of a canine homicide every nine and a half days. Supporting evidence for these deaths (in the form of news accounts) can be found on Fatal Pit Bull Attacks. These deaths and attacks on humans as well as on our more vulnerable animal companions, confirm the Court's finding.

SRUV is an animal welfare blog which advocates for public safety restrictions on pit bulls. Our opponents on this issue are the HSUS and nearly every other animal welfare institution in the country. They are good people doing good work, but wrong-headed on this issue. The HSUS has influenced the legislation under consideration in Maryland (HB 78 / SB 160) and have thrown their considerable resources into making certain the bill passes. Aligned with the animal advocates are the Maryland property and insurance lobbies.

The new legislation contains a provision which is of vital interest to the ACLU. Included at the insistence of the Humane Society is the phrase without regard to the breed or heritage of the dog. This seemingly innocuous phrase has vast implications. According to our reading of SB 160, future victims of pit bull attacks would be prohibited by state law from naming the breed of the attacking dog. Pit bull attacks are unlike attacks by any other breed of dog; the bodily harm inflicted is not comparable; victims must be able to call a Spade a Spade.

This "breed neutral" provision, in effect, puts a gag rule on victims of pit bull attacks; they would not be allowed to call an attacking pit bull a pit bull. A future victim, perhaps the next Dominic Solesky, would not be able to say he was attacked by a pit bull. This restriction is an infringement of First Amendment rights and a violation of free speech. The rights of a victim to seek redress would be severely impaired.

The ACLU has been our country's foremost defender of our citizens' right to freely express themselves. This inalienable right is even more important to the victim of an attack who goes before a court to seek redress. We respectfully ask for your assistance in persuading the Maryland General Assembly that HB 78 and SB 160 includes provisions which deprive citizens of their basic Constitutional rights.

* * * * *

Notes:
This post is one of a series on the Maryland pit bull conundrum. To view the index of all Maryland posts click here.

In a recent 57 day period (Jan 8 through Mar 6, 2013) there were six fatal pit bull attacks, all of which were committed by family pit bulls. See Fatal Pit Bull Attacks

Statistics are from Dog attack deaths and maimings, U.S. & Canada, published by Animal People. To view or download the current PDF click here.

Sunday, March 17, 2013

There are two approaches to the naming of pit bulls; the first is sweetness and light. Pit bulls bearing these names are often accessorized with polka-dot scarves. The second approach is the polar opposite and features names evoking strength, ferocity, or violence. The owners of these dogs are not trying to hide anything; in fact, these owners are projecting a violent nature onto their dogs.

The jury is out on which of the two naming theories prevails; clearly, conventional dog names such as Spot or Fido are uncommon for pit bulls.

Senator Frosh of Maryland has thrown his lot in with the sweetness and light approach. In a 6½ minute audio segment (included here) of a recent Senate floor debate on SB 160, the pit bull legislation, Senator Frosh repeatedly refers to a hypothetical dog named Fluffy.

The Senate is not debating a nip from Fluffy the Yorkshire Terrier; they should be debating about pit bulls, who have had a very big week. On Sunday a pit bull sprinted diagonally across an intersection in the Bronx to attack a toddler in a stroller. On Monday a family pit bull attacked an infant in Dundalk. On Tuesday Senator Frosh gave his memorable " Fluffy" speech on the floor of the Senate. On Wednesday three pit bulls attacked their owner in New Orleans, who was scalped, lost an ear and an eye and both arms, and who remains in critical condition.

This tape illustrates just how out of touch with reality the Senator is. Senator Frosh refers to the attack in Dundalk without mentioning that the dog was a pit bull. He refers to the attack as a bite. The owner of the attacking pit bull in Dundalk appeared on TV, obviously shaken:

Nathan Bellman says neither he nor members of his family ever mistreated their dogs; but the incident has changed his personal view of pit bulls: “After seeing it myself, I would never own another one,” he said. “I would never allow one around my kids or my family ever again.”

“To be honest I thought it was really life-threatening,” Bellman said. “Because of the intensity of the situation, the blood, and just everything. I mean it was bad.” “No one's regulating how they're being bred, and no one knows where most of these animals are coming from,” he said.abc2news.com

To refer to a life-threatening attack as a bite, as Senator Frosh insists on doing, is a peculiar form of avoidance. When Senator Nathaniel McFadden took the floor he attempted to bring the debate back to reality:

In my community, we don’t have Fluffy, we have Brutus, and Brutus bites people real bad.

We're afraid that Sen McFadden's point was lost on Senator Frosh, who is wandering so far out in LaLa land that he may never find his way home. Sprinkled throughout this audio, Mr Frosh makes several revealing statements:

Senator Frosh is the servant of many masters; even so, this revelation is astonishing. The HSUS has been involved in a nationwide stealth campaign to make it impossible for communities to enact public safety Breed Specific Legislation (BSL). Senator Frosh has been their point man in Maryland and SB 160 meets the demands of the HSUS. The rarely discussed "breed neutral" provision of SB 160 would make it impossible for the victim of a pit bull attack to mention that the attacking dog was a pit bull.

Senator Frosh's sponsorship of SB 160 may serve the HSUS, as well as the insurance and property lobbies, but it also serves Sen Frosh himself. According to Delegate Luiz Simmons, Frosh's version of the bill is an attempt to curry favor with the state's trial lawyers, to raise money and support in his run for Attorney General.

* * * * *

Notes:
This post is one of a series on the Maryland pit bull conundrum. To view the index of all Maryland posts click here.

In a recent 57 day period (Jan 8 through Mar 6, 2013) there were six fatal pit bull attacks, all of which were committed by family pit bulls. See Fatal Pit Bull Attacks

Statistics are from Dog attack deaths and maimings, U.S. & Canada, published by Animal People. To view or download the current PDF click here.

Thursday, March 14, 2013

There actually is no such thing as a pure-breed pit bull. It's not a breed of dog.
Cory Smith, Senior Director Pets for Life, HSUS

* * * * *

For the reasons stated in Judge Wilner’s Opinion on Reconsideration, it is, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland this 21st day of August 2012, ORDERED:

That the motion for reconsideration is granted in part and denied in part; and

That the Opinions filed April 26, 2012 are amended to delete any reference to cross-breds, pit bull mix, or cross-bred pit bull mix.

* * * * *

On April 26 2012 the Maryland Court of Appeals issued a ruling which established a strict liability standard in respect to the owning, harboring, or control of pit bulls and cross-bred pit bulls. By the fall of 2012 Maryland advocates of fighting breeds had been in a swivit for months. On August 21 the Court issued the revised ruling, which deleted any reference to cross-breds, pit bull mix, or cross-bred pit bull mix. The revised ruling alleviated the advocates' anxieties, to a degree.

In a previous post (Mendacity at the Highest Levels), SRUV described the blizzard of calculated misinformation about pit bull breed identification that appeared shortly after the Court's revised ruling. The misinformation was traced to an article which carried the following lines:

"There actually is no such thing as a pure-breed pit bull," said Cory Smith, a senior director with the Humane Society of the United States. "It's not a breed of dog."
-- Cory Smith, Senior Director Pets for Life, HSUS

Ms Smith's statement appeared in a Baltimore Sun article on August 21, 2012, the same day the Court issued its revised ruling. Ms Smith's claim appeared without attribution, and we are left to wonder at the coincidence.

We have shown that the term pit bull is the common vernacular, used by HSUS as well as by pit bull and bully breed rescue groups, animal shelters, journalists, state legislators, and in fact is used universally, to refer to pit bull type dogs without regard to whether or not the dog is pure- or cross-bred. In fact, the traditional fighting pit bull was often intentionally cross-bred (with the Blackmouth Cur, the Louisiana Catahoula Leopard Dog, bulldogs, and other Molosser breeds).

Ms Smith's claim that pit bulls are not a breed is spurious and clearly intended to sew confusion. We call upon the HSUS to act responsibly and acknowledge that Ms Smith's claim is erroneous. The HSUS must acknowledge that the term pit bull as commonly used is inclusive and refers to both pure-bred and cross-bred pit bulls.

Furthermore, the HSUS owes the public a full disclosure about the use of Ms Smith's claim in the days before it appeared in the Baltimore Sun on August 21 2012, the same day the Court issued its revised ruling which removed cross-bred pit bulls from the strict liability standards previously imposed by the Court.

If Ms Smith made this false claim before the Court, either in Court testimony or in an amicus curiae brief, HSUS must publicly acknowledge that false information was intentionally given to the Court and to the public. The deletion of any reference to cross-bred or pit bull mixes to the Court's opinion effectively guts the ruling of its ability to provide protection to victims of attacks by the very dogs most responsible.

* * * * *

Notes:

This post is one of a series on the Maryland pit bull conundrum. To view the index of all Maryland posts click here.

In a recent 57 day period (Jan 8 through Mar 6, 2013) there were six fatal pit bull attacks, all of which were committed by family pit bulls. See Fatal Pit Bull Attacks

Statistics are from Dog attack deaths and maimings, U.S. & Canada, published by Animal People. To view or download the current PDF click here.

Sunday, March 10, 2013

There actually is no such thing as a pure-breed pit bull. It's not a breed of dog.

* * * * *

Revised: Mar 10, 2013; 17:28 GMTRevised: Dec 26, 2013; 20:40 GMT

On April 26 2012 the Maryland Court of Appeals issued a ruling which established a strict liability standard in respect to the owning, harboring, or control of pit bulls and cross-bred pit bulls. On August 21 the Court issued a revised ruling, which deleted any reference to cross-breds, pit bull mix, or cross-bred pit bull mix. Shortly after the revised ruling was issued a blizzard of misinformation about pit bull breed identification appeared in the press. Dozens of papers published misleading claims by pit bull advocacy groups. We have belatedly identified the genesis of the rumors. On the same day that the Court issued its revised ruling (Aug 21) an article appeared in the Baltimore Sun. The article, which analyzed the ruling, included the following lines:

"There actually is no such thing as a pure-breed pit bull," said Cory Smith, a senior director with the Humane Society of the United States. "It's not a breed of dog."
-- Cory Smith, Senior Director Pets for Life, HSUS

Ms Smith's claim would surprise the United Kennel Club, which registers pure bred pit bulls (as the American Pit Bull Terrier). It would also surprise the American Kennel Club, which also registers pure bred pit bulls (as the American Staffordshire Terrier). Proof that these two breed names refer to essentially the same dog, and that both names are equivalent to the generic term pit bull, can easily be verified by checking pit bull breeder web sites, where numerous dogs are cross-registered in both clubs. It is not unusual for a single dog to be registered with the UKC as an American Pit Bull Terrier and with the AKC as an American Staffordshire Terrier; and the breeders call them pit bulls.

In addition, animal welfare advocates themselves across the country refer to pit bulls, whether pure-bred or cross-bred, as pit bulls. Owners, shelters, and rescues all refer to these dogs using the generic term pit bulls. The people who own them or write about them call them pit bulls. The people who fight them call them pit bulls. HSUS itself uses the term pit bulls hundreds or thousands of times, to refer to pure-bred and cross-bred pit bulls without distinguishing between them. Ms Smith is mendacious when claiming that pit bulls are not a breed.

In the last two months a pit bull has killed a human every 9½ days (see below). For attorneys and legislators and animal welfare executives to sit behind desks and dissemble while mayhem goes on outside their doors is insanity.

A Google check of Ms Smith's claim demonstrates how the phrase gained traction and reverberated through serious journalism as well as the blogosphere. This idea gained such wide currency that SRUV titled our collection of Maryland articles State of Denial. That a Senior Director of the HSUS would resort to false claims in support of fighting breeds serves as an indictment of the HSUS at the highest levels of management.

Though Ms Smith is first quoted in the Aug 21 2012 Baltimore Sun article, neither the Sun nor any of the dozens of other publications which subsequently carried her claim provide a context for her remarks. Was it offered in Senate or House hearings? Was it originally in a HSUS press release, circulated to journalists and advocacy groups? The journalists who first published this claim (Michael Dresser and Jill Rosen of the Sun) deserve an apology and an explanation from Ms Smith. The public has a right to know the origins of this falsehood.

* * * * *

Notes:
This post is one of a series on the Maryland pit bull conundrum. To view the index of all Maryland posts click here.

* In a recent 57 day period (Jan 8 through Mar 6, 2013) there were six fatal pit bull attacks, all of which were committed by family pit bulls. See Fatal Pit Bull Attacks

Statistics are from Dog attack deaths and maimings, U.S. & Canada, published by Animal People. To view or download the current PDF click here.

Thursday, March 7, 2013

In the coming days the Senate will vote on SB 160. If the Senate passes the bill they will effectively roll back the protections provided by the Court of Appeals ruling of April 26, 2012. Despite claims to the contrary, SB 160, if passed by the Senate, would deny future victims of pit bull attacks a legal remedy.

In 2012 there was a fatal pit bull attack every 16 days (see below for details). In a recent 57 day period* there were six fatal pit bull attacks: one every 9½ days. Each of those murders was committed by a family pit bull.

The Senators have been buffeted by a blizzard of advocacy. The advocates of fighting breeds tell the Senators that the Court ruling is discriminatory and would lead to the deaths of countless harmless family pets. The insurance and property lobbyists tell the Senators the Court ruling would be fiscally disastrous.

Neither the animal welfare advocates nor the lobbyists refer to the victims of pit bull attacks. They do not refer to the incalculable financial and emotional burdens of pit bull attacks. They do not mention the burden of grief and sorrow that fighting breeds have caused. Nor have they acknowledged the extraordinary record of fatal pit bull attacks.

We have repeatedly asked executives of Humane Societies, animal shelters, rescues, and animal welfare groups to take responsibility for their advocacy of fighting breeds by acknowledging the deaths that pit bulls have caused.

The Senators who are searching their conscience should ask themselves the following question:

Why do pit bulls kill more humans than all other breeds combined, even though they comprise less than 5% of the canine population?

With this fact in mind Senators must vote No on SB 160, legislation which would abrogate the Court's April 26 2012 ruling that pit bulls are "inherently dangerous".

* * * * *

Ryan Maxwell, 7 yo, d. March 2, 2013 The pit bull went straight for his throat, and then his beautiful face.WQAD.com

* * * * *

Notes:
This post is one of a series on the Maryland pit bull conundrum. To view the index of all Maryland posts click here.

Statistics are from Dog attack deaths and maimings, U.S. & Canada, published by Animal People. To view or download the current PDF click here.